Providing developers and businesses with a reliable, easy-to-use cloud computing platform of virtual servers (Droplets), object storage ( Spaces), and more.
Round 2 versus my nemesis
a couple of entries ago i wrote about how i debated with
this socialist of a woman about property rights. well this
woman is about 35 (from europe...belgium i think),
socialistic to the point of nausea and very, very, very
self-righteous. on a whole i am kind of tired by taking
issue with everything she says, but as of late she really
hit the dumb nerve.
the background is this:
in criminal law we were discussing sentencing and the
following case came up:
two women were convicted of theft from the government which
held around 5 to 6 years in prison. one woman had 4 kids
(aged 2, 4, 6, 11) and the other had none. the lady with no
kids got 5 years in prison and the lady with 4 kids got none
(of cousre with the usual cake walk of probation saying,
don't fuck up again).
i take issue with this because it is completely unfair. in
fact the code governing sentencing actually EXPLICITLY state
that familial circumstances are not to play a
role...however, the dumb ass judge here decided that these
were EXTRAORDINARY familial circumstances. how
quaint...change the adjective and re-interpret the code.
of course Ms. Socialist was all for this re-interpretation.
"i believe..." she always starts off with i believe, as if
she were martin fucking luther king jr.
"that this is the correct thing to do, because i believe it
would be unfair to the children."
i'm not going to lay out the next 20 minute argument between
us, but it went like this:
Me: isn't it unfair to the woman getting 5 years?
Her: that's not relevant, sentences shouldn't be comparative
Me: but they can be comparative given external circumstances?
Her: if they dictate it yes.
Me: why don't i just have 6 kids and then go rob a
bank...that way when i get sentenced i can say that i
shouldn't be jailed because of my kids
Her: that's different you're planning to have kids so that
you can commit crimes
Me: how do you know she didn't do that too?
Her: that's preposterous!
Me: why are you assuming that it is necessarily a good
thing that SHE (the birth mother) take care of the kids?
looks to me as if she didn't care about them enough to not
commit the crime, maybe adopted parents or foster parents
may be better
Her: i'm not saying that the 'real' parents are better, but
just that they are preferable
then it went on, and we devolved into foster parents vs.
real parents (who are criminals) and throwing in 'the burden
of society' when the group discussion ended.
a.) don't put me in a fucking group with her again. i mean
i LOVED debating with her, but once i was done i was
well...done. it's like i have all this crazy energy in my
debate, and then afterwards i hit the deck
b.) i have to atleast admit that she is very intelligent and
i like that a lot. she makes good arguments just that i
don't agree with them. i hate that she is
self-righteous...you can just tell that she doesn't want to
HAVE to defend herself..she would much rather just state an
opinion and let us bask in the honor of being in her general